Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Visual Effects Oscar Shortlist 264

Posted by CmdrTaco from the who-deserves-it dept.
nurble writes "The short list of films being considered for a best visual effects Oscar was released today. The biggest news is that the final two installments of the Matrix trilogy were snubbed in favor of Universal Studios' "The Hulk," New Line Cinema's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," 20th Century Fox's "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," Universal's "Peter Pan," Buena Vista Pictures' "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl," Warner Bros. Pictures' "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and Fox's "X2". Finalists will be announced following the effects "bake-off" on January 21st."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Visual Effects Oscar Shortlist More

Visual Effects Oscar Shortlist

Comments Filter:

  • ROTK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sahonen ( 680948 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:25AM (#7778769) Homepage Journal
    Return of the King, hands down. Best integration of effects with story I've seen, and come on, nothing was more impressive than Gollum. Most expressive CG character I've ever seen, take that Jar-Jar.

    • Geek Heaven (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dolo666 ( 195584 ) * on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:53AM (#7778906) Journal
      I was in geek heaven during the whole movie. I saw things in Return of the King I have never seen in a movie before. The rich story blends perfectly with the FX to make them almost real. Even with all the bloopers, it's believable (I didn't notice them). I don't think that anyone will come close to the quality that is Return of the King for ten years. They might get better tech running the show, but nothing like the sheer wonder between the cast, story, crew and director in RotK.

      • Re:Geek Heaven (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @10:50AM (#7779175)
        What especially impressed me about the CGI effects in RoTK was how they did the entire city of Minas Tirith. It's as if Alan Lee's and John Howe's paintings have literally come to life; the folks at WETA Digital should take a bow at how they integrated real scenes, models and CGI all into one. Just that is good reason why RoTK will win the Best Visual Effects Oscar. :-)

    • Re:ROTK (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:56AM (#7778917)
      Gollum on his own deserves the Oscar - more believable than most humans!

      The battle at Minas Tirith on its own deserves the Oscar.

      But both of them in the same film! There's no way they can lose. If they do it'll be the biggest joke ever, and I imagine there'd be more boos than even Michael Moore's acceptance speech.
      • I noticed a visual improvement in Gollum, and I've sinced learned that they tweaked his skin and joints since the last movie. For instance, when he wakes up, you can see his lips sticking together when he opens them, like real lips would. His facial animation is also much more realistic and natural. My favorite shot is when he and the two hobbits are hiding and peering over at Minas Morgul.

        Also, I noticed a shot of a Warg that looked much, much better than those of The Two Towers (even in the audio comm

    • Re:ROTK (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GerbilSocks ( 713781 )
      Screw Gollum, the real star of the show was that gigantic spider! Talk about a CGI character that feels its taking up actual space on the set, yet how they designed the sound effects and the animation, it made it appear the spider was big, but also stealthily deadly. Roger Ebert made mention of the realism of the spider on his movie review show, before I had a chance to see the movie, and after watching ROTK, I heartily concur with this observation. During the whole time, I wasn't thinking.."nice CGI effec
      • Jurassic Park was a plotless piece of tripe crap about not messing with nature, wrapped around special effects that were trying to make up for the lack of plot.

        At least Tolkien has a story.

        • Re:I hope not. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by catbutt ( 469582 )
          But isn't the special effects award for special effects, not plot?

          I agree that Jurassic Park had a kind of stupid plot, but I felt that my money was well spent for the effects alone. I mean, the Mona Lisa doesn't have much of a plot, but apparently people still like to look at it.

    • Re:ROTK (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For all you people going gaga over the "realism" in LOTR and trashing Matrix 2/3, remember it's easy to make something realistic no one has ever seen before. No one has seen a dragon but we've all seen cars and men in suits.

      • Re:ROTK (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JonGretar ( 222255 )
        How about the CG models of the main actors. Yo do not notice that these are not the actors themselves. In a lot of the shots the fellowship is computer generated. In most of the wide shots in the battle of Kaza'dum(or however it is spelled) these were CG characters. But you actually think that these are the real actors.

        However. In Matrix 2 and 3 everything smelled like CG. I was getting tired with the Neo CG character in all the battle shots.

        So it is not a question of things you've never seen being more r

    • Re:ROTK (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xie ( 722634 )
      IMHO I think RotK had the best CGI that you couldn't tell was CGI I've ever seen. In the matrix though the FX was good the CGI stuff just kinda looked, well, computer generated. I also did not really see anything in Matrix 2/3 that really raised the bar from original Matrix. I was pretty impressed w/ T3 FX although you could still tell they were computer generated unlike Gollum and the many other characters in RotK.

    • Not that impressed by ROTK effects (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie and am a long-time Tolkien fan.

      But, the effects in "Master and Commander" were far more polished, integrated, and all-in-all believable than most of the effects in ROTK.

      Maybe I watch movies with too keen an eye, but there are at least a dozen instances in ROTK where the effects mesh so poorly with the surrounding terrain, or characters, that it knocks out my suspension of disbelief. There are no such moments in "Master and Commander".

      Gollum is great but is a far cry
    • Absolutely. ROTK will be robbed if they don't get it.

      Usually, during films with large amounts of CG, I'll notice it. I'll be sceptical of it, and I'll think, "wow, that looks fake" - such as the second matrix. That film's major fight scene was horrible, in terms of "suspension of disbelief" - the graphics (at times) looked like a high-res video game, to some degree, in that the figures weren't moving properly, and other such things. Not to say it wasn't impressive, though. Just not believeable.

      For ROTK, I

      • Re:ROTK (Score:5, Informative)

        by malducin ( 114457 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @03:03PM (#7780846) Homepage

        Absolutely. ROTK will be robbed if they don't get it.

        I guess you don't know how the Academy operates. The VFX Branch (composed of VFX pros) select the 7 Bake-Off finalists and then the VFX membership votes the 3 nominees. But it's the entire Academy membership (actors, producers, directors, etc.) votes on all the winners. Which is why sometimes you have some surprises, upsets and funky selections.

        X-Men 2 didn't strike me as actually using all too many rendered effects.

        I believe they had over 500 VFX shots nothing to sneeze about done by a variety of studios. Many were of the invisible kind like set extensions (the interior of the X plane, Cerebro was a partial set, Wolverine's claws in many shots, etc.)

        Even the lava flows looked quite realistic, and that's something that's fairly difficult to get right, I hear.

        Well yes and no. CG fluid dynamics for production are relatively recent (Cast Away, Perfect Storm, etc.). Do remember the CG lava in Shrek. Also there have been other ways to do it. ILM used methacyl (a thick viscous fluid) on a miniature set for Congo. The methacyl was later color corrected and composited on the live action sets.

        Overall the ROTK work was extremely impressive and more polished than the previous work. There are some minor rough spots but overall it was superb.

  • Woah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:25AM (#7778771)
    As I recall, critics were saying the only redeeming quality of the last matrix was its visual effects... Nice mood swing.
    • As much as the Matrix sequels sucked, the effects were at least on par with some of these other flicks. Like T3, I mean, c'mon, there was only really one cool scene in the whole movie.

      • Re:Yeah, I agree (Score:2, Interesting)

        by josephpate ( 317462 )
        And Pirates of the Carribean. I mean come on, sure it was a good movie but the effects were lame... the skeletons looked like marrionette puppets half the time.

    • Looked like a video game (Score:5, Interesting)

      by migstradamus ( 472166 ) * on Sunday December 21, 2003 @11:04AM (#7779241) Homepage
      I just watched "Reloaded" on DVD and was appalled by how obvious the CGI was in the big "army of Smith" fight scene. From all the cool "bullet time" photography and Hong Kong wire action we shifted to Street Fighter 6. It was a great looking video game, but it was still painfully obvious when they switched over. It's one thing for distant battle scene but when you are "close" enough to see facial expression, or lack thereof, it's just not cutting it. The faces were smoothed over and static.

      Morpheus addressing Zion early on didn't convince either. It looked washed out and projected.

      It probably didn't help that I just saw ROTK a few days ago on the big screen. I'm still amazed at how well that was done. There was barely a single moment of being distracted by obvious CGI even though it was far more ambitious than Reloaded. My suggestion, stay away from close-ups of human faces in CGI action sequences.

      Even speech is still very tough. The only moments of CGI weakness in Gollum, who was staggeringly well done, were speaking close-ups, not action. So many muscles go into saying the letter "M" and it's a familiar look to every human (unlike leaping around on a mountain ledge).

      • Smith punch in Matrix Revolutions (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @02:33PM (#7780624)
        I agree that ROTK has surpassed the Matrix movies, but Revolutions should have at least gotten a nod.

        Gollum may be the most well-done CG-character, the most realistic CG human face goes to Matrix Revolutions. Why? Well, you remember when, in the crater, Neo punches Smith in the face in slow-motion, and you see the effects of the punch in Smith's face, his skin rippling, etc?

        Nothing in that shot was real. It was all CG.

        Also, you have to at least give a nod to the siege of Zion sequence. It was pretty intense in the moment. Over all, Revolutions should have been given a chance. There was a lot of great CG, from the Sentinel siege, to the shot I described, to the explosion of the street when Smith slams Neo into it, and so on.

        Still, ROTK should and will win.
        • That shot looked horrifically fake. The audience groaned when they saw it.

          Also, it should be noted that Warner Bros. didn't even submit Reloaded for a VFX award. They didn't want the votes to be split between Reloaded and Revolutions.

    • Re:Woah... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 )
      As I recall, critics were saying the only redeeming quality of the last matrix was its visual effects... Nice mood swing.

      <rant>
      To me, the real problem with the list is not that the last two Matrix movies are not included, but that the Hulk is included. I have not seen the Hulk, but I have seen enough trailers of it to be disgusted. The cinematic previews of it were so bad as to make me actively avoid seeing it. Those were horrible. How can a movie have the best visual effects when they can't ev

      • Re:Woah... (Score:3, Informative)

        by malducin ( 114457 )

        To me, the real problem with the list is not that the last two Matrix movies are not included, but that the Hulk is included.

        You do realize the list is picked by a team of VFX pros, the VFX Branch of the Academy, headed by Richard Edlund. There are many reason why the Matrix might not have made it. Maybe all the submission requirements were not submitted on time. WB was going to submit Revolutions anyway so not to split the vote.

        Second the Hulk had some of the most innovative VFX work of the year, u

  • WHAT?!!!!!! NO Star Wars Kid? (Score:5, Funny)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:29AM (#7778787) Journal
    That just proves that this whole thing is a sham.

  • Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:31AM (#7778796) Homepage Journal

    The second and third Matrix releases weren't the best in the effects department. I am blown away that Hulk was even considered.

    Anyhow, the Oscars are moot. The whole academy is nothing more than a mutual-admiration society that pats each other on the back all day. They're trying to sell you tickets and DVDs, remember?

    • Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:50AM (#7778892) Journal
      They're trying to sell you tickets and DVDs, remember?

      We want to buy them, remember?

      I mean, with all the yadda-yadda-yadda about the Hollywood as a mutual-admiration society, the globalization, the macdonaldization, blah blah blah, I am still the first to queue for any science-fiction or fantasy blockbuster. I _want_ to pay my buck for the right stuff, and all the "Lord Of The Rings" installments were the right stuff (let me refrain from commenting the "Matrix", nothing hurts as much as disappointment in love).

      • Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by grub ( 11606 )

        I _want_ to pay my buck for the right stuff

        And therein lies the key: pay for what you think is "the right stuff", not what the movie industry says you should see.
      • the "Lord Of The Rings" installments were the right stuff (let me refrain from commenting the "Matrix", nothing hurts as much as disappointment in love).

        I would agree, had I never seen the goatse guy...

  • The Hulk? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AssClown2520 ( 695423 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:31AM (#7778799)
    Oh come on

    Not only was this one of the worst films I have seen in years, but the effects were brutally unfitting. It reminded me of the movies where they take the cartoon charecter and put him in the real world. I don't think that was the desired effect though...

    • To be honest, the CGI didn't bother me nearly as much as the "trying to take a shit" look that Bruce Banner wore during most of the film.

      Yes, yes, you're very angry... very very angry. Now unpinch your fucking face and do a little real acting.
    • And the video game...
      Cell Shading: BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    • Re:The Hulk? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Da Fokka ( 94074 )
      What the hell, Ive got karma to burn.

      I actually liked the Hulk. I actually thought it was a very entertaining movie. I liked the way they transformed the comic book to the screen, I liked the transitions and most of all I liked the over-the top special effects. No they did not look realistic. No, they were not rendered on a l33t WETA beowulf cluster. But they were fitting to the theme and supported the story (which was thin, but what the heck, its a fricking comic).

      Of course, Return of the King should win

  • Same old story. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:32AM (#7778801) Homepage
    LOTR III will get some stupid Visual Effects or Best Soundtrack or Biggest Boobs Oscar nobody cares about and the main prices go to generic, brainless, Disney-esque Hollywood shit like Jerkinator III, Green Dork or Find Goatse.

  • Swimming Pool (Score:5, Funny)

    by colini ( 702444 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:35AM (#7778816)
    Ludivine Sagnier has the nicest pair of visual effects I've ever seen.

  • major snub! (Score:3)

    by Raster Burn ( 213891 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:38AM (#7778825)
    The Matrix had some revolutionary special effects like the free flying camera during the Burly Brawl.

    What does the academy have against the Matrix, anyway?

  • Peter Pan? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hexydes ( 705837 )
    Every time I watch a trailer for Peter Pan, I always say to myself "Wow, that looks REALLY fake!" I think even Hook (with Robin Williams) looked more realistic, and that was 10 years ago!
    • Let me introduce myself. My name is James, and I'm the only person in history who really liked... Hook.

      • Re:Hook... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kierthos ( 225954 )
        No, you're not. Was it William's best movie? Nah... was it even remotely Oscar-caliber in any way? No, but I think the /. opinion on the Oscar committee greatly resembles a bucket of feces.

        Was it a fun movie? Yes. And Dustin Hoffman as Hook was an even more brilliant piece of casting then Robin Williams as a middle-aged Peter Pan.

        Kierthos
    • That's because it's not intended to look real, you are missing the point of the movie and visuals. This is an attempt to have a more faithful interpretation of the story. The visuals are heavily art directed to have a stylized apperance.

      It's like What Dreams May Come (which won the VFX Oscar btw). It was supposed to look painterly. Same with Peter Pan's many vistas.

  • The way to choose (Score:5, Funny)

    by Esteanil ( 710082 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:39AM (#7778828) Homepage Journal
    Let's pit Gollum, Terminator, The Hulk, Peter Pan and all those undead pirates against eachother in a nicely computer-generated arena.
    The winner claims the Oscar.

    "And Gollum runs towards The Hulk, with his fierce hissed battle-cry of "Filthy greenthingses", eagerly a-snapping for fingers!"

  • Master and Commander (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:39AM (#7778831)
    Master and Commander is an interesting choice. Nothing in the movie looked fantastical or supernatural, it just looked like they somehow took movie cameras back a few hundred years. Did they really have two tall ships sailing around? In the Star Wars, on the other hand, yeah it's imaginative but it's obviously all CGI.

    Anyways, I think it's cool they nominated a movie whose visual effects were subtle but convincing.

    • Anyways, I think it's cool they nominated a movie whose visual effects were subtle but convincing.

      I strongly agree. The effects in The Return of the King might very well be the most advanced ever shown in cinemas, and look damn good at that, but ultimately they're not 100% convincing. Visual effects are supposed to assist in creating an atmosphere and sense of scale, which ROTK's effects really do, but they're also supposed to suspend any sensation of disbelief, which ROTK's effects don't always.

      I defini
    • I agree as well. The main reason for MC's nomination is that recreating water in the computer is probably the toughest challenge for any visual effects team because we all know how water looks like and how it behaves. Special effects that are fantastical like in LOTR or Matrix movies are harder to judge because we can't make accurate comparisons to anything in real life.
      • Not all the water was CG. For half the VFX shots, mainly Asylum's work, they shot real ocean plates and composited the real ship and miniatures onto it. For the storm sequence, they actually sent a crew to Tierra de Fuego to film stormy seas and composite the miniature.

        The Apple trailer site even had a featurette on that though it seems they removed it.

        ILM did use some CG water for their shots.

      • The VFX branch nominates films not only on innovation but on execution as well. Thatr's why films with a great quantity of invisible VFX can get nominated (for example Gladiator).

        For MC, real ocean plates were used along with CG water. For more details on the VFX of the film check this:

        The Effects Mastery of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World [vfxworld.com]

    • From the Boston Sun review of M&C:
      "Painstakingly rendered props and computer-generated imagery blend persuasively with a real ship filmed at sea and full-scale models shot in the Baja, Mexico, water tank built for Titanic."
      http://www.sunspot.net/entertainment/mo vies/bal-to .master14nov14,0,6183776.story?coll=bal-artslife-m ovies

      Looks like the majority of the water/ship effects were actually genuine. That impresses me to no end.
  • MATRIX REJECTED [whatisthematrix.com] This is bad - Matrix 2 (Reloaded) had plenty of hi-tech CGI and good visuals also Matrix 3 was not bad... PLENTY OF MONEY WAS PUMPED AND A LOT OF SCENES WERE WORTH A AWARD (No Doubts) But Lord of the Rings [lotr.com] 2 http://lotr.com/us/ must be good I have seent he 1st one it was cisual treat no doubts
    • While I must say the parent poster uses a lot of useless CAPS (someone needs to teach him that they work best when used sparely), I strongly agree with the content.
      I think the Matrix 2/3 story was barely average, the visual effects were very good, usually well integrated and created a very nice atmosphere. Not including them really is not fair to the movies, because this is an area where they still were extremely good (too bad they could not make a story line as good as Matrix 1!).

  • Pixar Renderman (Score:5, Informative)

    by KoolDude ( 614134 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:41AM (#7778833)

    It's interesting to note that a good number of these movies [pixar.com] use Pixar's Rendering software [pixar.com]. That being said, I am surprised that Finding Nemo [imdb.com] is not in the list. Don't they consider animations for the visual effects Osar?

    • Re:Pixar Renderman (Score:3, Informative)

      by ScottGant ( 642590 )
      Yes, Renderman is the main rendererereerer of choice for many things. The latest version of Photorealistic Renderman [pixar.com] (Pixar's actual product that they sell) supports true raytracing now.

      There are even open source Renderman renderererer called Pixie [sourceforge.net] that is very powerfull in it's own right.

      But Finding Nemo is considered total animation and not special effects per-se. Special Effects are for live action movies where there is something needed to be added that only special effects could solve. Expect to se
    • No, they're only elligable for Best Animated FIlm oscar. Dreamworks's Shrek was the first film to win this, showing that CGI animated films can win Oscars, just not traditional VFX ones, as it is arguably harder to make VFX convincing in live action. In an animated film there is already suspension of disbelief, we know none of the images are real. With live action, they are trying to convince us the images are real. Therin lies the challenge, not how much money you can spend on fancy CGI, but how much an a

    • Remember? They added animation into the categories, didn't they?

    • Re:Pixar Renderman (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Taos ( 12343 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @11:58AM (#7779602) Homepage
      They didn't only use Pixar's renderer, and here is a dark tale of what Pixar did to another small startup Exluna [exluna.com]

      Notice how that link goes to Nvidia? There's a reason why. Quite a few years ago, a rather genius programmer left Pixar and started up his own company to write a competing renderer called Entropy. Pixar's renderer, while very fast and the basis for many effects and animation piplines throughout the industry, was getting a bit long in the tooth. It didn't have any raytracing abilities (outside of some clever hacks), and completely lacked the global illumination abilities that were neccassary for some believable lighting models.

      Why do I bring this up? Because Gollum was almost exclusively rendered on this renderer. Pixar's Renderman was not capable of doing some of the stuff they needed for that beautiful skin shader at the time they developed Gollum.

      Pixar didn't take lightly to this. They launched a lawsuit against Exluna saying they were violating certain patents they held regarding some antialiasing algorithms. Never mind that the renderer was far more advanced and was a complete drop in replacement for Pixar's competing product. This was a straight up ploy to get rid of the competition.

      To this day, the Exluna developers still say they did not violate those patents and that they would have won in court. However, winning in court would have destroyed the company. Instead, they sold the company to Nvidia, where they are working on some even more advanced stuff, but under the protection of a larger and well financed (and lawyer'd) company.

      There are may other Renderman based renderers out there, all of varying capabilities. Pixie, while technically advanced and written by a brilliant graduate student at berkely, has a few rough edges and is missing some important features. Aqusis is progressing nicely, but doesn't have many features that I rely on. Mental Ray, while not renderman compatable, has all the features and more, but you pay for it in speed. Right now, I'm using Pixie for my tests. It's free for me, but I wouldn't trust it in production just yet. For production I would still choose Pixar's Renderman, which has since incorporated much of the lighting features available in other renderers (somewhat pushed by the demands of their clients, but mostly because they used a lot of those special lighting tools in Finding Nemo).

      For more information on all available Renderman capable renderers and how to use them, I suggest visiting the Renderman Repository [renderman.org]

      Alright, back to work for me. I'm supposed to present this skin shader after new years.

      Rich

  • Scorsese and Lucas (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mr.henry ( 618818 ) * on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:43AM (#7778848) Journal
    According to the IMDB trivia [imdb.com] for Gangs of New York:

    19th century New York was recreated on the lot of Cinecitta studios in Rome. When George Lucas visited the massive set, he reportedly turned to Scorsese and said that sets like that can be done with computers now.

    When I saw TPM and AOTC, I thought the effects were really cool and impressive, but not 'realistic.' They looked too perfect. I think if Scorsese had seen ROTK in 2002, he might have decided to use computers for the sets. Peter Jackson has definitely raised the bar.

    • I'm guessing George Lucas has routine fits of rage nowadays, now that his ILM studio has been so profoundly outdone, and his personal dream of realistic computer-generated characters/environments have been dashed against the rocks - at least for him, personally. :)

    • Funny thing is that maybe Lucas was unaware that ILM did work on Gangs of New York. They did shots like the pullback after the initial battle, the final NY transition, the attack from the harbor, and actually a lot of invisible set extensions all around, which most people never noticed or knew about.

      For its VFX, Gangs of New York was nominated for a VFX BAFTA (the British Oscar) and for 2 VES (Visual Effects Society) awards for best matte paintings and best invisible VFX.

      Some info in the VFX are here

  • T3? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nsxdavid ( 254126 ) * <dw@plaOOOy.net minus threevowels> on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:44AM (#7778852) Homepage
    I wasn't even aware that T3 brought anything new to special effects stage. They basically used the normal mishmash of off-the-shelf gags. It's horrible that T3 was ever made, but I would have set that opinion aside to judge it on special effects alone... except none of them were in anyway special.

    The Matrix 2 invented some new bleeding edge technology, fo sure. The problem was they couldn't find a good plot device to justify using it. But certainly the special effects accomplishments are a milestone even if the movie wasn't. I think Matrix 3 had little new except that they spent a lot more time in the CG department. How many Linux boxes does it take to render a few million sentinals anyway? Not sure it matters, one EMP wipes both out. :)

    LORs had some amazing effects. The ingtegration with the story, the cinematography and the directoral style is probably their crowning accomplishment. Not to mention sheer volume. Like Matrix 2, they had to invent some new technology to pull off a "whola lotta something" effect. In this case, not just a whole lot of Agent Smiths, more like a whole lot of orcs and what not. And the impact was considerably greater.

    My only beef with LOR effects was the places where it was so plainly obvious you were looking a miniature set. Like Isengard being washed away. Some of the scenes completely failed, slow motion water or not, to look remotely anything other than little models. I'm surprised by this as in other places the miniature effects were outstanding.

    But Golem stole the show. That was a masterpiece of special effects. I hope it gets the accolades it deserves. After all, imagine had it turned out like the yellow critter in Lost in Space.

  • Hows that it is an amazing mistake - Its [pixar.com] the best foilm inanimation this season ! LOTR is cool [lordoftherings.net] but...

  • Truly Out of Touch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:52AM (#7778897)
    Stunning. If The Matrix 2-3 aren't nominated for an Oscar then we'll know that Hollywood has finally lost its last shred of credibility.

    1993: Tommy Lee Jones beats John Malkovich for best supporting actor.
    1998: Edward Norton does not win an Oscar for American History X.
    1998: Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, and Thin Red Line each lose to Shakespear in Love for best picture.
    2003: The Matrix 2-3 may not even be nominated for technical awards.

    That's it Oscar! Go to hell. You lost legitamacy in my eyes with those first three gafes but this is stupid. What a sick and disgusting cess-pool of immorality and bad taste they are.

    • Re:Truly Out of Touch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fredrikj ( 629833 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @09:58AM (#7778924) Homepage
      Don't forget Titanic :P

      And yeah, I think Matrix 2 or 3 deserved a nomination. I mean, what on Earth is Pirates of the Caribbean doing in that list? The CGI skeletons were just grotesquely bad. The highway fight in Matrix: Reloaded, on the other hand, was one of the coolest things ever. Sure, the movie was dull, but that's not what the visual effects category is concerned with.

    • You're right! I never realized that the Academy members have different tastes than you do until just this minute! I feel so unclean even thinking (like a lot of people here) that the efx for those Matrix movies kinda sucked. Unclean! Unclean!

      Please, start our own awards show. I need to feel clean again.

    • If The Matrix 2-3 aren't nominated for an Oscar then we'll know that Hollywood has finally lost its last shred of credibility.

      I thought that might be one tiny step to gaining some sort of credibility.

      Seriously, did you not notice that the FX in Reloaded and Revolutions (especially Reloaded) just plain sucked? I mean, there are more realistic looking video games out there, for gods' sake.

  • Oh no, not the Hulk (Score:4, Funny)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles DOT jones AT zen DOT co DOT uk> on Sunday December 21, 2003 @10:03AM (#7778951)
    He ended up looking more like the Jolly Green Giant "Ho Ho Ho" :)
  • Doesn't Pillsbury have a trademark on the term bake-off?

    Intellectual property hawks of the world, unite! Fight this outrage. SCO, are you listening?

  • The fight scene with the kagillion AgentSmiths looked like a poor version of HalfLife.
    They were choppy, expressionless, flat images.

    I expected to see something like the first Matrix Movie. I guess that is the curse of success. They made the first movie too well forcing the next two to suck.

    However LotR may have broken that curse...
    • The Two Towers and Return of the King are technically not sequels. Tolkien wrote it all as one book, and only split it into three when his publishers told him they couldn't print a book that big.

  • Reloaded and Revolutions split the votes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @10:58AM (#7779214) Journal

    The most likely possibility isn't that they deliberatley snubbed both Matrix films. Both were released in the same year, so some voted for one, some voted for the other, and neither got enough to get on the list. Probably a good reason not to release two films in the same year until the Academy changes their voting in some way that can more fairly acknowledge multi-part works.

  • Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @11:03AM (#7779237)

    The battle scenes with all the pirates changing back and forth as they stepped in and out of the moonlight were excellently done. Doing that on a battle-sized scale is incredible.

    • Re:Pirates (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AndyBusch ( 160585 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @11:24AM (#7779354)
      Thank you. I loved the movie for that reason. The timing was impeccable. ILM has partly atoned for their sins in Star Wars with that.

    • Re:Pirates (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rokzy ( 687636 )
      but the couple ROTK scenes that involve the dead army contain almost everthing in Pirates.

      while I liked Pirates, nothing about the effects really wowed me.

      in ROTK, there are many great effects scenes, and the two where the Rohan rode into the orcs, and the dead army galloping across the sea into battle were amazing.

      • Re:Pirates (Score:3, Insightful)

        by red floyd ( 220712 )
        It wasn't the army of the skeletons in Pirates, but the seamless changing back and forth in "real-time" (yes, I know it's not real-time) that got me.
  • Is it list of best visual effects or worst movies in the year?

  • Europe vs America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @12:27PM (#7779808) Journal
    I've read an interview with Wolfgang Becker - the German director of the "Good Bye, Lenin!" [good-bye-lenin.de] and there was a sentence I find +1 Insightful (with a slight tint of -1 Flamebait). Becker was asked about the CGI used in this film - whose large sequences take part in the pre-1989, communist East Berlin. Becker said that his film actually relies quite heavily on CGI just to remove all the contemporary signs of western capitalism in Berlin. When the journalist said that the CGI in this film is hard to notice, Becker said: "I am proud that the special effects in my film are hard to notice. Only in America the filmmakers are proud of special effects that are easy to notice".

  • Whoah Oscars again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vijaya_chandra ( 618284 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @12:46PM (#7779932)
    I hadn't seen any other movies on the list but the matrix sequels, so I donno how the special effects were in the other movies.

    forget the final award but not even a nomination for Revolutions?!?! Whoah

    To my knowledge the wachowskis had to send only Revolutions for the Oscar nominations ( Yohooo the Academy has some rules/guidelines too )
    May be the ppl who decide the nominations had thought that there aren't visual effects other than the super brawl at the ending.

    For their benefit i'll try to list down a few

    i) The opening sequence
    ii) The hovercrafts and all the places they move along ( mostly tunnels )
    iii) Smiths, smiths and more smiths with the oracle, seraph and sati
    iv) The Dock with the APUs and whatever other structures
    v) The fight with the swarms of sentinels and the diggers
    vi) The surface with the earth with those huge guarding machines churning out the squiddy bombs (sry this fool doesn't know what they're called), the sentinels again, the breeding fields, neo's orange vision and the machine city
    vii) the super brawl

    ( Note : The next poster can do all these things on his pc with maya or 3dsmax )

    Flame me but I guess all these as a whole deserve atleast a nomination.

    But who "really" cares for an oscar??

    which finally brings us to the question that drives us
    what is reality??

  • Hulk ??? (Score:2)

    by Tom ( 822 )
    Hulk made the list?

    It had the most blatantly obvious CGI ever. I know a few stop-motion movies from the 1940s that look more "real".

    Yes, I know it's a comic adaption. The problem is that everything in the movie is trimmed to look real. Neither the tanks nor the guns, soldiers, streets, etc. are "comic styled". Only that green monsters stands out so obviously as CGI that any suspension of disbelief requires a massive dose of illegal drugs.

    Have they seen the movie, or do they go by box-office numbers?

  • Reloaded FYI (Score:2, Informative)

    by fireteller2 ( 712795 ) *
    Matrix Reloaded was not entered for Oscar consideration to avoid the two movies competing against each other.

    Matrix Revolutions was the only one in consideration for the long list.

    It's exclusion from the list in favor of T3 is very odd to me, as a visual effects professional. "Revolutions" was clearly superior in number and quality of effects. IMHO

    fire

  • The Matrix (Score:4, Funny)

    by Daimaou ( 97573 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @01:52PM (#7780295)
    In my opinion, the Matrix could have easily been snubbed by Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

  • Visual effects is NOT CG (Score:4, Funny)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Sunday December 21, 2003 @02:44PM (#7780712) Homepage
    Let me get this off of my head at once:

    Visual effects are NOT necessarily computer-generated images.

    Sure, the Matrix movies had tons of CG, but were lacking in the more 'traditional' effects department. The sets weren't up to par, costuming was unoriginal, and there were no new cinematic techniques which actually added to the film. In fact, the effects were incredibly obvious.

    On the other hand, ROTK did not rely exclusively on computers, and built scale-models, and used 'old-fashioned' camera techniques such as forced perspective which was brilliantly used to make the hobbits appear 3 feet tall - not once during all 3 films did I dobut that they were actually 3 feet tall. Lighting was perfect, and the times where WETA resorted to CG were perfect (read: Gollum).

    I hope this is a lesson to future filmmakers not to over-use computers in film production. The old-fashioned stuff looks so much better!
    • A lot of the work in the Matrix sequels was actually miniatures, particularly the Zion shots. Just check out the credits for all the modelmakers. And they did have quite a bit of innovation, check George Borushkov's website for his SIGGRAPH documentation:

      http://www.virtualcinematography.org/

      You would find that most of the VFX bake-off finalists used miniatures in some quantity:

      X2: the dam exteriors for example.
      Pirates of the Caribbean: ships were miniatures for the most part.
      Master and Commander: also qu
    • Visual effects != special effects. Special effects are effects done on the set. Visual effects are effects done in post production. The VFX Oscar has nothing to do with things like the quality of the sets (unless the sets are CG or models added in post).

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Close